A question for Kerry supporters

[multipak]

It is probably because he only saved "50 cents" Unfortunately it doesn't help his argument when I praise Bush because I am a middle class person who actually got a LOT of money back from the tax cuts and I got all the stuff Bush promised me. Maybe that is why he was so eager to jump in out of nowhere and call me 'narrow-minded' because I enjoyed getting more of my money back.

haha rarnom. To borrow your words, you are doing a very good job twisting my words. That 50cents is from special tax cuts on CAPITAL GAINS and DIVIDENDS, which I specified clearly. Who is grasping for anything? Why don?t you tell us how much you saved from that cut? Let me guess. I think I know??. As for your petty claim (your attempt to put me down) about who saved more from overall tax cut, let me just say you teach grade school and I teach college, and let's guess whose cut will be greater.

O.k., you are really eager to call me a hypocrite,

I didn?t have to do anything. You proved it yourself.

but you missed the point of my post. I am not calling Kerry anything, I was pointing out that it doesn't matter what I think about Kerry, but there are people who are very entitled to think he is a hypocrite.

That is so typical of your way of denial. If I quote another?s words against Bush, I will admit that it is obviously my attempt to discredit Bush. You put up an article against Kerry, and you say it?s for academic purpose. Yes, sure. Whatever.

I think that any POW who was in Vietnam and suffered that much can call Kerry a traitor. I am in no position to call Kerry a traitor. I think that what he did was weak.

I think NOT. They have no right to call anybody traitor without undeniable evidence. That?s not how our court of law works. You don?t accuse anyone without proof. We call that libel. If you allow people to make accusations without definite evidence, how is US better than any of other totalitarian regime?

What do we know about these POW? They consented to appear in right wing propaganda film to attack Kerry. Are they partisan? Very likely. Are they credible? Not in the least.

you were utterly confusing, trying to show that I said I was 'non-partisian

You want to go to that topic again? I thought I said enough on that, so I didn?t bother to reply further. You want it, you got it.

What the difference seems to be is that you are "anyone but Bush", and I am "anyone but Kerry"

When I say 'anyone but Kerry' it doesn't mean I am a wildly open minded 'non-partisian', it just means that I am voting for Bush.

The definition of ?anyone but Kerry? voter means you would be willing to vote for anyone other than Kerry. Somehow, you are attempting to change the definition of it to ?Bush voter? to suit your needs. You twisted not only words, but definition itself.

If it continues to irk you, then um, go smoke or something?
You need to lighten up man. I can call Michael Moore a hypocrite all I want.

Haha. Sounds like someone?s getting upset. You can say whatever you want. But when you are asked questions about it, you go roundabout way to deny it. I guess that?s fine. That?s the ultimate politics in a nutshell.